When you characterize wanting worker protections as wanting a “nanny state” and then claim that the people who support that think it’s a better idea “to have a

When you characterize wanting worker protections as wanting a “nanny state” and then claim that the people who support that think it’s a better idea “to have a Netflix subscription than set that money aside in an emergency fund”, am I supposed to infer that you have a high opinion of people in this situation or that you think they deserve it? > and your argument makes no logical sense anyway, how can someone that has marketable skills, WANTED by companies, then be not expected to be able to handle their life themselves? Perhaps if I had started this chain off by talking about people with in demand skills, this would be an appropriate critique. However, I was speaking about when people are in a desperate situation which usually implies they don’t have some sort of leverage like in demand skills. Your suggestion of letting the government be the default but allowing employees and employees to negotiate whatever deal they want is already the case for people with leverage. People with in demand skills aren’t trying to negotiate a $2/hr wage but the “nanny state” is getting in their way. You’re proposed change to removing government minimums that cannot be negotiated away will only change the situation for people in desperate situations and you are continually hand waving that away as an outlier case despite that both A) not being an outlier, and B) being the vast majority of peoples whose personal situations would be affected by your proposal